A new webinar from LawGeex will cover how to create an internal contract triage process in five steps, all the way from planning through to execution.

The complimentary 45-minute webinar will be Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2017,  at 2 p.m. Eastern time.

The event is intended to provide a practical look at building on-the-ground solutions for contract triage.

The webinar will cover:

• What is contract triage, and how leading legal teams are implementing these solutions today.
• How to dramatically reduce the time and cost of contract review and approval.
• Practical steps to improve your existing triage process and streamline contract review.

Register for the webinar.

Within minutes of attorney Tom Pickert’s murder Wednesday morning at his Kansas City-area home, his colleagues in a recent case started worrying about their own safety, reports The Kansas City Star.

One lawyer had assisted Pickert in an effort to secure assets from the defendant in a multi-million dollar civil case that Pickert and his partner had won in July. Now, he said, he doesn’t walk the dog or get the mail since Pickert’s death.

Reporters Glenn E. Rice and Donald Bradley quote the victim’s associate: “We became pretty religious about setting the alarm system at home and I started looking over my shoulder. But I’m still going to the office. I’m not letting this change my life.”

And a judge in a civil case where Pickert secured a $5.7 million judgment sealed records of the case to prevent jurors from being identified.

Pickert, 39, was fatally shot just after he returned to his home in Brookside early Wednesday after walking his children to school.

Read The Kansas City Star‘s article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

A U.S. District Court recently addressed issues associated with a producing vertical well’s claim for damages related to another company’s subsequent installation of a horizontal well, reports Walter G. Wright for Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard.

Specifically, the court addressed whether various damage claims were waived by the execution of a consent and release agreement.

Wright explains that the defendant cited the second paragraph in the agreement in support of its assertion for the waiver of most damages. In contrast, the plaintiff cited the last sentence of the first paragraph for the proposition that it was not restricted in its ability to “seek relief.”

The court found the agreement to be ambiguous because of this inconsistency and contradiction and found that the terms should be construed against the defendant, who drafted the agreement.

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Most companies are rethinking data breach risk and cost allocations in new and existing vendor agreements, points out Anne S. Peterson in McGuireWoods’ Password Protected blog.

“Limitation of liability and indemnification clauses form the framework for reducing unforeseeable, and potentially devastating, data breach costs,” she writes. “To defend against unpredictable damages, these clauses are fast becoming the most fiercely negotiated language in service provider agreements.”

“Under most state statutes, a service provider’s obligations, and liability for costs, end with notification to the customer. Simply put, if the organization’s sensitive data is breached while under the control of a vendor, the vendor’s only obligation is to notify the organization. It is then the customer’s obligation to handle the fallout, unless the customer’s contract with the vendor provides otherwise.”

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Lawyers – particularly those representing plaintiffs – should give thoughtful attention to the timing of a release clause in any settlement agreement, advises Lisa B. Markofsky in a post for Proskauer Rose LLP.

Failure to do so, she writes, could result in the plaintiff finding that its “compromise” was nothing more than a unilateral agreement to reduce the value of its claim.

The case could turn on “whether the settlement agreement is construed to be (i) a “substituted contract” wherein Plaintiff accepted the promise to perform the compromise as satisfaction of its underlying claim or, alternatively, (ii) an ‘executory accord’ wherein Plaintiff accepted actual performance of the compromise as satisfaction of its underlying claim.”

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Any attorney who regularly drafts stock purchase agreements, voting agreements, or other contracts that use the term “voting power” would do well to take note of a recent ruling, suggest Benjamin F. Jackson and Stephen P. Younger of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.

They write that the New York case Special Situations Fund III QP, LP. v. Overland Storage, Inc. raises several questions: What does the contractual term “voting power” mean? Does it refer only to the power to elect corporate directors, or does it refer to the power to vote on any fundamental matter of corporate governance? Is voting power an attribute of stock, or is it something that shareholders possess?

Leaving this term undefined in a contract could be risky business, they warn.

Read the article.

A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is a reminder that — for an arbitration clause to apply in certain situations or to certain parties — that intention must be built into the plain terms of the contract.

In a post on the Blank Rome website, partners Stephen M. Orlofsky and Deborah Greenspan discuss White v. Sunoco, Inc. The case involved the “Sunoco Awards Program,” under which customers who used a Citibank-issued “Sunoco Rewards Card” credit card were supposed to receive a 5-cent per gallon discount on gasoline purchased at Sunoco gas stations.

A dispute over the discount led to arbitration.

In its ruling the appellate court found: “[n]owhere does the agreement provide for a third party, like Sunoco, the ability to elect arbitration or to move to compel arbitration.”

Read the article.

The portion of Norton Rose Fulbright’s 2017 Litigation Trends Annual Survey that covers alternative fee arrangements presents a puzzling picture that probably reveals the challenges of bringing about changes in the way external counsel are instructed, the firm reports.

Last year, 37 percent of respondents predicted they were going to increase their use of AFAs.

“Those who have used AFAs over the year are almost universally satisfied with the quality of the work they have received,” according to the report. “But, despite this, the use of AFAs (56 percent) and their average spend under an AFA (28 percent) are largely unchanged since last year.

“The inherent unpredictability of many types of dispute could be placing a ceiling on the proportion of matters where both parties feel confident operating under an AFA. However, staged approaches to AFAs can help to overcome this. Predictions for 2018 once again show a rise in AFAs – it will be interesting to see if this materializes or whether inertia persists.”

The survey also looks in detail at other major areas of concern, including regulatory investigations; class actions and environmental disputes.

Read the survey report.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Silicon Valley software startup Zenefits and its co-founder Parker Conrad have been fined nearly $1 million by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as part of a settlement over charges that they had misled investors, reports Reuters.

Zenefits will pay a $430,000 penalty and Conrad, who resigned as chief executive from the company in early 2016, has been fined more than $533,000, according to Reuters reporter Heather Somerville.

“The SEC found that Zenefits made ‘false and misleading statements and omissions’ to company investors by failing to disclose that it was not compliant with state insurance regulations,” Somerville reports. “Zenefits employees had sold health insurance without proper licensing, the company said, a violation that led to fines from several states.”

Read the Reuters article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Former law school classmates and professors of Roy Moore — the candidate likely to become the next U.S. senator from Alabama — shared stories with The New Yorker about the student who one professor nicknamed “Fruit Salad.”

That student went on to become chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court but was removed twice for violating the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics.

Writer Charles Bethea quotes one former Moore classmate: “I remember our constitutional-law professor really ripping Roy apart using the Socratic method and thinking, in retrospect, ‘I can’t believe this man went to West Point.’ Because you kind of think that you have to be smart to go to West Point.”

And Julia Smeds Roth, a partner at the law firm Eyster Key, in Decatur, said : “He’d go to class, but he was argumentative, very stubborn, and not very thoughtful in his analysis of the cases. He was not a very attentive student. For the most part, students didn’t respect him much.” She added, “Of all my classmates, he was the least likely I’d think would become a U.S. senator.”

Read The New Yorker article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

By Keli Johnson Swan
Scott & Scott LLP

Virtualization can reduce the number of physical machines required in an environment and have several other benefits, but it can also require an understanding of complex technical and licensing concepts. Failure to properly license the environment can subject the company to unbudgeted licensing and compliance fees. The following list includes several common questions and concerns related to licensing VMware.

I. Third Party Use: Can VMware Tools be accessed by third parties?
Yes, a third party may access VMware Tools on a machine owned by the licensee, but only if a Guest Operating System is installed within a Virtual Machine. The End User License Agreement defines a Guest Operating System as “instances of third-party operating systems licensed by You, installed in a Virtual Machine and run using the Software.” It is critical to note that the customer is responsible for ensuring that any third party it distributes VMware Tools to complies with the terms of the license agreement, or it may be liable for potential copyright infringement and breach of contract claims. See VMware End User License Agreement (“EULA”), Sections 1.3 and 2.5.

II. What other restrictions apply to Third Party Use?
Although a customer may use VMware to deliver hosted services to third parties, there are numerous restrictions regarding what functionality may be shared without VMware’s written consent. Third parties may not use the software as service bureaus or application service provider or similar capacities, and licensee must not transfer or sublicense any software without VMware’s consent. Further, certain benchmark testing results may not be shared externally, nor any reverse engineering information of the software. The license agreement also restricts circumvention of any security protocols, which are also covered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). See VMware End User License Agreement (“EULA”), Section 3.1 and 17 U.S.C §1201.

III. Conflicting Terms: Does an Order supersede the End User License Agreement?
No. All terms of the Order are subject to the EULA and are not deemed valid until accepted by VMware. The Order may outline specific use of a product but if the terms conflict, look to the EULA. A change to the EULA requires VMware’s written agreement to change standard license terms. See VMware End User License Agreement (“EULA”), Section 4.

IV. Audit Rights and Record Retention: What are VMware’s audit rights?
The EULA grants VMware the right to audit a company at any time during the License Term (identified in the Order) and two years following the expiration of the license term. This provision requires the customer to retain records for up to two years following the expiration of the license term and allow VMware to conduct a software audit to ensure compliance with the license agreement.

VMware or a third-party auditor may audit a customer with “reasonable notice” once in a 12-month period during normal business hours. A customer must immediately remediate any non-compliance. If the audit reveals the customer has underpaid license fees of more than 5% or failed to maintain proper records of software use, it must pay VMware’s costs to audit in addition to any fees for remediation. See VMware End User License Agreement (“EULA”), Section 5.

This provision represents one of the largest risks during a customer’s relationship with VMWare. The customer must accurately maintain all records related to VMware usage and license information. If a customer fails to properly account for its usage, VMware may attempt to extrapolate the data in a light least favorable to the customer, which could significantly increase its monetary damages for non-compliance. Additionally, failure to comply with the terms of the license agreement could result in involuntary termination. See VMware End User License Agreement (“EULA”), Section 10.

V. Termination: Does VMware have the right to terminate the licenses?
Yes. VMware is allowed to terminate the license pursuant to the EULA for the following reasons:

a. Breach of the Agreement
VMware is allowed to terminate the agreement for non-payment of the Order within 10 days of sending the customer a written notice. Additionally, VMware is allowed to terminate the licenses if a customer breaches the terms of the agreement and does not correct the breach within 30 days of receipt of VMware’s written notice. This provision is particularly important because VMware can terminate the licenses for failing to comply with the licensing terms.

b. Insolvency
VMware may also terminate the licenses if a customer becomes insolvent (through the admission in writing or in bankruptcy proceedings).

The End User License Agreement does not contemplate termination by the licensee except upon the termination of the license term. See VMware End User License Agreement (“EULA”), Section 10.

VI. Effects of Termination: What happens to the licenses after Involuntary Termination?
If VMware terminates a license, the customer no longer has the right to install or access the software. Additionally, the EULA requires the customer to immediately stop using the software and uninstall it and return any media. See VMware End User License Agreement (“EULA”), Section 10.

VII. Confidentiality: Can a customer share VMware pricing or purchase orders?
No. Specific information, including license keys, pricing, marketing materials, or any other non-public information exchanged between the customer and VMware are confidential and may not be shared without VMWare’s permission. It is important to note that this provision survives the termination of the agreement. See VMware End User License Agreement (“EULA”), Section 10 and 11.1.

VIII. Data Privacy Implications: Does VMware protect customer data?
The EULA acknowledges that VMware may obtain and share with a worldwide group of companies in furtherance of providing software services, but it agrees to act as the controller of this information and to comply with the applicable data protection legislation. See VMware End User License Agreement (“EULA”), Section 11.4.

Customers should carefully analyze VMware’s license terms and agreement in order to ensure that VMWare’s protections are sufficient for the customer’s needs.

See “VMware Audits – What You Need to Know About Licensing Rules Pt. I.”

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Image by Nick Youngson

For those lawyers who are intimidated by the prospect of marketing themselves, Amy Boardman Hunt of Muse Communications offers some advice: Have a plan, and start small.

“Formulating a plan will ensure that you’re not just throwing money and time into the wind, and starting small can help prevent overwhelm,” she writes on the Muse website.

In the “Creating a Plan” section, she writes that you should start by answering three questions: 1. Who are your prospective clients? 2. How can you get in front of them? 3. Why should they hire you?

The article also covers the topics of demonstrating knowledge, automation and accountability, combining business development with civil and social action, and outsourcing.

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Tom Melsheimer

The University of North Texas Press is releasing a lawyers’ guide to courtroom preparation and strategy titled “On the Jury Trial: Principles and Practices for Effective Advocacy.”

Texas trial lawyer and Winston & Strawn Dallas managing partner Tom Melsheimer and Texas judge Craig Smith wrote the book, which covers jury selection, witness preparation, opening statements, jury research, and more.

Judge Craig Smith

“In an age when the jury trial is vanishing, I think a book such as ours is a must-read,” said Melsheimer. “To preserve the jury trial, we must preserve the skills involved in trying a case effectively and efficiently. Judge Smith and I wrote this to add to that effort.”

Trial lawyers whose comments appear on the book’s jacket laud the work for its down-to-earth advice, illustration and commentary.

“Real-world, real-life insights. A book that every lawyer should read,” said Michael E. Tigar, author of “Persuasion: The Litigator’s Art and Examining Witnesses.”

“I will definitely order a copy of this book for every associate in my firm and recommend that others do so too,” said Steve Susman of Susman Godfrey L.L.P.

Before being elected to the 192nd District Court in Dallas County in 2006, Judge Smith was a trial lawyer for more than 25 years. As a judge, he was honored as Trial Judge of the Year by the Dallas Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates and was elected president of the Texas Association of District Judges in 2010.

Melsheimer has tried cases for more than 30 years. He is a past “Trial Lawyer of the Year” by the Texas Chapters of the American Board of Trial Advocates and by the Dallas Bar Association. He is a Fellow in the International Academy of Trial Lawyers and an Advocate in the American Board of Trial Advocates.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Corporate legal departments say their most effective cost controls are enforcement of billing guidelines, reductions on invoice expenses, and working with law firms that pro-actively show their value. At the same time, many legal departments are not using fixed or flat fees, matter budgets, competitive bidding through requests for proposals (RFPs) or reallocation of work to smaller firms with lower rates.

That’s according to the Thomson Reuters Legal Tracker LDO Index, a new semiannual report based on anonymized data from over 1,100 legal departments. In addition, the report separately surveyed 155 legal departments on their use of cost controls.

Seventy-six percent of legal departments surveyed said that controlling outside counsel costs is a high priority, more than any other factor. This is not surprising, considering that 65 percent said the volume of legal matters they handle increased over the last six months, while only 30 percent said their total legal department budget increased.

Most Effective Cost Controls

When asked how effective various cost control methods are, nearly 80 percent of legal departments said moderate enforcement of billing guidelines and reduction of invoice expenses were effective or highly effective.

Alternative fee arrangement (AFA) use remains at low levels. While 83 percent of legal departments use AFAs, 55 percent use them for less than 20 percent of their legal spend. Seventeen percent do not use AFAs at all.

As far as other cost controls, most legal departments say they either do not use RFPs, matter budgets or limitations on the use of first-year associates, or do not find those cost control measures effective.

However, most legal departments say they prioritize working with firms that are proactive in showing their value, rather than simply reallocating work to smaller firms with lower rates.

Law Department Operations Roles Growing

Fifty-six percent of legal departments now have a dedicated legal operations function, up from 51 percent from the previous LDO Tracker survey conducted in April. Similarly, legal departments are now more likely to rank their level of sophistication in managing outside legal spend as “proactive” or “optimized,” while fewer legal departments say they are “reactive.”

And these law department operations professionals are making these improvements despite continued budget pressure. The percentage of law departments who have increased their technology budgets has only risen to 22 percent compared to 18 percent in June.

“Efficiency is increasingly the watchword as corporate legal departments strive to streamline operations and manage challenging budgets,” said Mark Haddad, head of the Corporate segment for Thomson Reuters. “More legal departments are taking an operationally focused approach to optimize processes, rather than relying solely on blanket approaches such as fixed fees or matter budgets. This is helping legal departments more effectively manage their outside counsel spend. And this approach will benefit those firms that adopt a proactive strategy in delivering and demonstrating their value.”

See the full report of the Thomson Reuters Legal Tracker LDO Index.

NAVEX Global will stage a unique, once-a-year virtual conference to help particpants learn about current best practices and new emerging compliance issues.

The free webinar will be on Thursday, Nov. 9, 2017.

More than 4,000 legal, audit and compliance professionals are expected for the 2017 Ethics & Compliance Virtual Conference to hear speakers like:

• Shankar Vedantam, Host of the Hidden Brain Podcast and NPR’s Science Correspondent

• Kristy Grant-Hart, CEO, Spark Compliance Consulting

• Richard Bistrong, CEO, Front-Line Anti-Bribery LLC

This year’s conference will have 23 sessions throughout the day with three specialty tracks on Aligning Corporate Risk & Culture, Leading for the Future and Investing in Corporate Culture.

Participants are free to come and go as they please. Anyone unable to access the live webinar may register to obtain access to the sessions later.

Register for the webinar.

Foley & Lardner LLP announced that Dorothy Watson has rejoined the firm’s Environmental Regulation practice as of counsel in the Orlando office.

Watson has 10 years of experience as an environmental lawyer from both an outside and in-house counsel perspective. For the last four years, Watson has been environmental counsel for multiple business lines within Schlumberger, the world’s leading provider of technology for the oil and gas industry. While there, she advised management teams on environmental risks and provided legal compliance counsel for matters arising under various state, federal and international environmental laws and regulations, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Toxic Substances Control Act and REACH, as well as regulations under the authority of OSHA, MSHA and the FAA.

Watson began her environmental law practice at Foley & Lardner in 2007 as an associate where she advised clients on state and federal waste, air, water and OSHA compliance issues, including site remediation and permitting strategies.

“We are excited to have Dottie return to our team,” said Gary Rovner, chair of Foley’s Environmental Regulation practice. “The business-oriented practicality she gained working as in-house counsel for an industry leader will complement the firm’s expertise to position us to successfully address the most pressing environmental issues facing businesses today. We look forward to helping her grow her practice with us.”

Mike Okaty, managing partner of Foley’s Orlando office said, “Dottie brings with her an ideal skill set for our clients. Her knowledge of the U.S. EPA and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection will help serve the needs of our clients in our burgeoning Florida market and throughout the country.”

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Sidley Austin LLP announced that it will add a team of five partners to its Capital Markets and M&A practices, four of whom – David Buck, Jon Daly, Angela Richards and George Vlahakos – will be based in its Houston office, with the remaining partner – Bill Cooper – splitting his time between Houston and Washington, D.C. Buck, Daly, Vlahakos and Cooper will join Sidley November 1, while Richards will follow in early December.

“David, Bill, John, Angela and George are widely known in the energy sector and recognized for their experience and industry insights,” said Kevin Lewis, co-managing partner of Sidley’s Houston office. “For the past two decades they have been advising energy companies, investment banks, funds and others on complex and innovative transactions, including for master limited partnerships. Their coveted MLP capital markets and tax work will be an important addition to our office, and together with their broader capital markets and M&A capabilities will complement Sidley’s formidable, globally recognized capital markets and M&A practices.”

Their arrival is coming on the heels of several other energy partners that have recently joined Sidley, including David Asmus, Brian Bradshaw and Brian Minyard in Houston, and Emily Pitlick Mallen in Washington, D.C.

The firm provides the following biographical information for each of the new partners:

David Buck – Buck is a senior capital markets and M&A partner with a distinguished corporate and securities law practice emphasizing transactional and governance matters. His corporate finance practice includes representing both issuers and investment banks in initial public, private equity and debt offerings. He has particular industry experience with domestic and international energy, including oil and gas exploration and production, midstream, offshore drilling, seismic and other energy services. Buck advises special committees and financial advisers concerning merger and acquisition transactions, joint ventures and private equity investments. Additionally, Buck regularly counsels public clients regarding compliance with periodic reporting, proxy solicitation, corporate governance matters and other requirements of the federal securities laws, the New York Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ Stock Market and other exchange rules.

Bill Cooper – Cooper concentrates his practice on complex capital markets transactions representing both issuers and underwriters on initial public offerings (IPOs), follow-on equity offerings, traditional private placements, Rule 144A offerings and private investments in public equity. He has substantial experience with master limited partnerships (MLPs), including private formation transactions, IPOs, sponsor drop-down transactions and conflicts committee representation.

Jon Daly – Daly focuses his practice on corporate and securities law. He represents public and private companies, MLPs and investment banks in all forms of capital raising transactions, including IPOs, registered offerings of equity and debt securities, as well as private placements of equity and debt securities. In addition, he advises on corporate governance matters, periodic reporting and other requirements of federal securities laws, and the requirements of the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ Stock Market.

Angela Richards – Richards advises clients in the energy sector on various federal income tax matters, particularly on domestic business transaction planning. She counsels MLPs on mergers and acquisitions, capital formation, acquisition and recapitalization issues. She has also served as tax counsel to both issuers and underwriters in connection with numerous MLPs, IPOs and follow-on offerings.

George Vlahakos – Vlahakos has experience in a broad range of transactional and corporate governance matters. His practice includes representing public and private entities, investment banks and private equity firms in connection with IPOs, mergers and acquisitions, private equity investments and registered offerings, as well as private placements of equity and debt securities. He also counsels MLPs and clients across the energy value chain, including those engaged in upstream, midstream, downstream and oilfield service-related matters.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

The International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) has been named the 2017 Outstanding Alliance Award recipient by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR).

The award recognizes the IADC’s collaboration with ILR on reform issues that are central to ILR’s program abroad, such as third-party litigation funding transparency and class action reform in Canada. The IADC also was honored for its work as a valuable partner with ILR on reform issues in the United States, including preventing the expansion of class actions in the states and addressing regulation through litigation.

“The IADC is tremendously honored to be recognized by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform for its collaboration with ILR on many critical areas of legal reform in the United States and around the world,” said Andrew Kopon Jr., IADC President and a founding member of Kopon Airdo, LLC in Chicago. “We are grateful to the leadership of ILR for the opportunity to work together and to provide an important avenue for the IADC’s 2,500-plus members to contribute to these efforts in meaningful ways.”

In a release, the association said:

The Outstanding Alliance Award is part of ILR’s Annual Legal Reform Awards that honor individuals and organizations whose outstanding work in partnership with ILR has contributed to making the United States and key foreign civil justice systems simpler, fairer, and more efficient for all. The IADC and its leadership were formally recognized at ILR’s 18th Annual Legal Reform Summit on Oct. 25 in Washington, D.C.

“Receiving ILR’s Outstanding Alliance Award demonstrates that the IADC has emerged as a valuable partner and strong voice for reforms that seek to improve civil justice systems,” said Mark Behrens, chair of the IADC’s Civil Justice Response Committee and co-chair of the Public Policy Group at Shook Hardy & Bacon in Washington, D.C.

The following are among the IADC’s recent legal reform initiatives on which it has partnered with ILR:

Opposed the proposed adoption of a rule to permit a class action procedure in Mississippi’s state court system;

Supported requiring disclosure of third-party litigation funding at the outset of a lawsuit, specifically joining ILR’s petition proposing an amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to require disclosure;

Opposed the proposed American Bar Association (ABA) resolution attacking restrictions on punitive damages for manufacturers of FDA-approved drugs and devices, specifically leading a coalition of opposition that included all leading national organizations for lawyers who primarily represent civil defendants (the ABA did not move forward with the proposed resolution); and

Provided expert input into the ILR’s consideration of the options for meaningful class action reform in Canada.

“The IADC’s alliance with ILR is another example of a highly successful IADC program that benefits our in-house counsel, insurance executive, and outside lawyer members in the United States, Canada, and abroad and also helps the IADC attract the best and brightest defense lawyers from around the globe to support these advocacy efforts,” said Gordon McKee, an IADC Board member and a partner with Blake, Cassels & Graydon, LLP, in Toronto, who leads the IADC’s efforts on Canadian class action reform.

According to Kopon, the IADC’s partnership with ILR has been highly successful, with the IADC consulting for ILR on numerous matters, and ILR leaders supporting multiple IADC initiatives. ILR President Lisa Rickard has spoken at several IADC events, including its domestic and international Corporate Counsel College education programs.

“The IADC looks forward to continuing to support ILR in the furtherance of legal reform in many areas in the coming year,” Kopon said.

ILR, which is a separately incorporated affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is the country’s most influential and successful advocate for civil justice reform in the United States and abroad. ILR conducts cutting-edge research, advances pragmatic solutions and advocates for those solutions with Congress, state legislatures, federal regulators, international policymakers and the courts to effect meaningful change. To read more about ILR, visit http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Ian Forbes has joined DLA Piper’s telecommunications practice as an associate in the Washington, DC office.

He previously served in a number of positions at the Federal Communications Commission’s Wireline Competition Bureau, most recently as Deputy Chief of the Telecommunications Access Policy Division. While in law school, Forbes clerked at both the FCC and the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

He earned his J.D., cum laude, from Catholic University, where he obtained a certificate from its Institute for Communications Law Studies, and his B.A. from American University.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

The Senate has voted 51-50 to get rid of a banking rule that allows consumers to bring class-action lawsuits against banks and credit card companies to resolve financial disputes, NPR reports.

Vice President Pence cast the tie-breaking vote to rollback the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule banning restrictive mandatory arbitration clauses found in the fine print of credit card and checking account agreements, writes NPR reporter Scott Neuman.

President Trump is expected to sign the measure, which has already been approved by the U.S. house.

Neuman writes: “CFPB said it was redressing a situation in which consumers were forced ‘to give up or go it alone — usually over small amounts,’ while companies were able to ‘sidestep the court system, avoid big refunds, and continue harmful practices.'”

Read the NPR article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group